. I am not impressed nor do I now feel an imperative to draw you a picture of a mindless spark! — universeness

Nono! It's not meant to impress. If moving you see the mindless spark before your nose. Its still with us in the vacuum. Energy fluctuating all over space.

Thanks for the clrifications as to energy and existence. It seems to me you've adopted the method of Fetcher over that of the romantics by arguing from science to philosophy. Also, aren't you arguing from time and what is done in time to an eternalism that is foreign to our senses?

Thanks for post. I have mulled over it and it seems to be, in the least, plausible. Immaterial space becomes the first existent and the uncaused cause which is then related to actual space. I connected the transcendental with the empirical. Mass could not create itself; therefore, it is a result of the immaterial.

I see posts mentioning time. Is time a real immaterial existence or just a mathematical one?

No. My space is real; Kant's was perceptual, but it is transcendental in accordance with Kantian requirements.

If moving you see the mindless spark before your nose. Its still with us in the vacuum. Energy fluctuating all over space — Frankly

Such would not be the mindless spark I am referring to as my reference is merely a proposed conception for those who insist on a first cause in the origin of the universe story, that started the 'bounce,' i am simply applying the same 'special pleading' that theism uses to insist that god is eternal and needs no first cause. Well, I am suggesting that 'existence' or 'something' or 'energy' is eternal and needs no first cause and that the 'divine spark' can be replaced by the 'mindless spark' or god as the first cause which ends the infinite regress can also be a spark with no 'mind' or 'intent' behind it that no longer exists so it DOES NOT connect with your description of phenomena which DOES still exist.
My suggestion is that a god that STILL exists outside of space and time is total BS.
If such a 'prime mover,' 'trigger' did ever exist, it does not exist now and when it did, it was mindless and had no intent.

Thanks for the clrifications as to energy and existence. It seems to me you've adopted the method of Fetcher over that of the romantics by arguing from science to philosophy. Also, aren't you arguing from time and what is done in time to an eternalism that is foreign to our senses? — Gregory

Yes, I argue from science and my own personal philosophy. I have an often admitted, limited academic command of philosophy, so I don't know who fletcher is/was or who the 'romantics are/were but I am willing to do some background reading on such, if you wish to link me to such, if you think any such reading would confirm or combat my viewpoints on the origin of our Universe story.
I think science can speak to the metaphysical suggestions posited by philosophy, in that science can suggest that which is labeled metaphysical, is simply a conflation or misunderstanding of the existence of that which human science cannot yet confirm/observe/detect, like dark matter or dark energy. You can label such, currently, as 'metaphysical,' in the sense that it's 'beyond' physics for now but it's stupid, imo to label the metaphysical as meaning 'after' physics as under that reference, the metaphysical does not exist as there is no such thing as 'after' physics.
I don't see why a 'bouncing' universe where as a consequence of each manifestation or new inflation/expansion, time or t is 'reset' to 0, is 'foreign to our senses', especially since time is relative and death is the end of all sensory experience but such experience can be reset. when birth causes new sensory experience or repetition of sensory experience for a 'new life,' in a similar conceptual way to a 'new universe.'

Sensory existence in the Universe has existed and does 'bounce' or 'oscillate' via death and birth since 'life' first sprang into existence from 'before' life or 'life' came from 'nonlife,' another example of how something can come into existence from before it existed but not from 'nothing.'.
Each manifestation of life, is, however, different from, or is a variety of, life, just as each new universe is different from any previous one.

Ok, I thought you were arguing for B time. Einstein thought time was an illusion because of his understanding of general relativity. Time is a very difficult subject because you understand it until you have to explain it. The romantics I referred to were the German idealists after Kant. Fetchner was one but argued for much of the same thing from science itself. So, I think that the world is spiritual but 1) science can't say anything about spirituality, and 2) a materialist viewpoint is self consistent but incomplete. All that exists is this world, matter is real, and matter and the spirit are identical. Are you open to these ideas? I see the world and know it's just as I see it (objectively), but paradoxically I don't know what it is yet. Not until I complete my life on earth will I know full reality. Maybe a materialistic spirituality is possible!

I think time is the world acting spiritually

My view is that time does not exist. If I am wrong, time is an immaterial existence. Now it can be easily said that no movement, no time. Time is what the moving hands on the clock measure. Is that mass it measures?

I don't think you can prove time is real from motion and matter alone. Heidegger's philosophy does a lot in the way of bringing the mind to time and it's manifestation

Gregory, thanks for response. On time, I use myself as the authority.

Of course. What do you think of Kant's time as intuition?

Well, Kant probably felt time. But when I read that section, I thought that his intuition was equivalent to our perception; however, intuition is not perception. Associating consciousness with time may be common.

So, I think that the world is spiritual but 1) science can't say anything about spirituality, and 2) a materialist viewpoint is self consistent but incomplete. All that exists is this world, matter is real, and matter and the spirit are identical. Are you open to these ideas? I see the world and know it's just as I see it (objectively), but paradoxically I don't know what it is yet. Not until I complete my life on earth will I know full reality. Maybe a materialistic spirituality is possible! — Gregory

What meaning are you assigning to the word 'spirituality?'
The original meaning simply referred to 'to move' or 'to be animate.'
But now it's related to words such as 'soul' or a noncorporeal existence or a ghostly presence etc.
I assume you are referring to its more recent meanings than its original one.
If that is the case then it holds no meaning for me personally at all.
Science can state a very basic comment regarding the 'soul' or 'spiritual' references that are used today and that is that there is no proof such proposals have any existence, at all. This is my position as well.
I agree that a materialist viewpoint is incomplete as science is incomplete but science is still working on gaining new knowledge so I remain a confident materialist and I reject anything labeled supernatural or even metaphysical. Can you offer me an example of what you would consider 'matter' and 'spirit' and are 'identical?' It would need to be an example I have never conceived of before as I would reject any suggestions like consciousness or contrived 'hippy style' phrases such as 'the essence/source of the 'force' of nature etc. I am not open to theosophist ideologies such or Buddism, Taoism etc.

I think your last few sentences above are nice and I feel a great sense of common ground with the underlying sentiments you present. I too have a great sense of wonder about the basics.
Who am I REALLY? Why am I here? What is my ultimate fate? I also am attracted to the basic theistic tenet that humans are of great significance to the Universe as WE give IT significance and meaning because we ask questions and through us, the universe may be trying to emerge/gain objective knowledge of who, why, and what it is. This is why I raise a tiny eyebrow towards the idea that panpsychism is an emerging universal consciousness but I consider panpsychism to be compatible with the materialist viewpoint and could be part of that 'incompleteness' you cite but I have very little confidence, at the moment, that it is a valid proposal.
I am also very much in agreement with Carl Sagans 'great demotions,' when it comes to humans thinking about how important they may be.
I remain 99.9% convinced that labels such as 'supernatural,' 'metaphysical,' 'spiritual,' 'soul,' etc are vacant of all useful meaning at the moment and need reassignment to more useful and accurate meanings.

There is ONLY matter and spacetime. Spacetime and matter in it emerged once from an eternal basic structure. So no something from nothing. It's more like real from virtual.This basic structure doesn't need a first cause as it is the first cause, which doesn't need a first cause. There is no reason why it's there it's just there. What more can we say?

If you say so.

Clearly our conceptual frameworks are either N/A or far too limited, too parochial, too earthly to answer cosmic questions. It's like asking a bacterium in a rain puddle to answer questions about the Pacific and that's being generous. Our brains simply can't get a handle on events/phenomena at the astronomical scales we're talking about here.

No harm in trying though!

It's unwise not to adopt that view, but we must keep trying and looking for verifications in reality

It's unwise not to adopt that view, but we must keep trying and looking for verifications in reality — val p miranda

Indeed!

An interesting post

Examine, criticize.

Why no responders?

It is impossible to think about nothing; there's nothing to think about! The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is not something a human can answer, assuming I'm your typical human.

Look at a donut hole. Think about what you can't remember. :smirk:

Look at a donut hole. Think about what you can't remember. — 180 Proof

Ok but these, in my humble opinion, are only substitutes for nothing, like trick shots in pool; they're not the real McCoy if you catch my drift.

That said, they're close enough for government work, oui monsieur? Something is better than nothing although there's a clear and present danger that we maybe led astray by these (imperfect) clones.